Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Nintendo] The best January the Wii U has ever had

Posts

Oh, that reminds me, Shadow of the Colossus, another game that chugged because of the PS2's hardware.

And you're saying that you can tell the difference. Okay then. So.... how does that make me inherently wrong? Like I said, I get the feeling this is all subjective, but I really am curious to see if I'm missing something.

Shadow of the Colossus chugged, for sure... but that was due to the game's design. If it was optimized or designed differently, it would have run fine. The system's capabilities isn't to blame for that.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!

Do you get it now? Cause you just fucking said it. Hardware impacting game design.

SotC is a game who's mood depends on the hugeness of the colossi in their large environments. This is key to the game's design and in order to accomplish that, the developers had to do things that made the PS2 chug like Chris Christie crossing the street to get to a donut shop.

The hardware was not adequate (or, alternatively, barely adequate) to accomplish their design goals. The systems capabilities are completely to blame for this because they are the only thing holding back the game.

Now they could have changed the design, but by saying that you are admitting that the inferior hardware is limiting the design possibilities of the developers. And thus you have made my point, that better hardware is good for more then just fancier graphics.

Right. That was because of the PS2.

Now: have we had the 360 and PS3 hardware impact design? Which is what I was specifically asking before. (See above quote.)

I'm not denying that hardware has the potential to impact design, I'm asking if it did, to any large degree, in the case of the 360 and PS3.

Wait, so you are saying "Yes, it impacts design, but not this time"?

So why don't you explain why this time is different from every other time.

Mainly because I, personally, don't see it. The AI in general seems the same, the world size seems the same, the physics seem the same, etc. I'm curious if there's anything I'm missing, and if there are cases where things like that are demonstratively better than anything we encountered in the PS2/360 era.

Yes, this is subjective and likely won't prove a thing one way or the other... but I said at the very beginning that I get the feeling this will be very subjective.

So I just proved you wrong. There are design restrictions on the PS360 because of the hardware.

Wait... you weren't kidding? Er... I wasn't talking about hardware restrictions, I was curious if we've really gotten a noticeable, relatively widespread improvement in non-graphical stuff going from last gen to this due purely to a beefier processor.

So I just proved you wrong. There are design restrictions on the PS360 because of the hardware.

Wait... you weren't kidding? Er... I wasn't talking about hardware restrictions, I was curious if we've really gotten a noticeable, relatively widespread improvement in non-graphical stuff going from last gen to this due purely to a beefier processor.

Oh so now it's the processor specifically, not just "hardware" like it was on the last page.

Here's a difference between last gen and this gen: in GTA3, if you got out of your car and turned away from it for more than five seconds, chances are it's done gone disappeared. In GTA4, the car will stay exactly where it is until you run couple of blocks away from it.

So I just proved you wrong. There are design restrictions on the PS360 because of the hardware.

Wait... you weren't kidding? Er... I wasn't talking about hardware restrictions, I was curious if we've really gotten a noticeable, relatively widespread improvement in non-graphical stuff going from last gen to this due purely to a beefier processor.

Oh so now it's the processor specifically, not just "hardware" like it was on the last page.

Here's a difference between last gen and this gen: in GTA3, if you got out of your car and turned away from it for more than five seconds, chances are it's done gone disappeared. In GTA4, the car will stay exactly where it is until you run couple of blocks away from it.

Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry about that. Well, I've been talking about "power" in general, so I'd say RAM counts too. Still, that's a very bizarre restriction as far as Mass Effect goes... do you have a source on that? I'm honestly curious.

I'll take your word for it on the GTA thing happening, though. Which is a nice thing to have. Then again, I played San Andreas, and that game had a lot less disappearances than GTA3, so it could be a matter of getting better at creating the world. Though I stress... could be.

Some changes this generation compared to last are mostly expanding upon ideas in the last generation. GTA 3 was revolutionary due to its open world design. Look at games this generation that use that idea. GTA 4, Assassin's Creed, Prototype, Infamous they all take the idea of open world do anything, go anywhere design and greatly expand upon it. Assassin's Creed's draw distance was awe inspiring when you climb your first viewpoint, no ridiculous fog when you look fifty feet ahead. Prototype and Infamous arms the player with a massive amount of gameplay options, which was nowhere near possible on the last gen, not to mention the absurd amount of on screen action that can take place. Dead Rising was completely impossible to do last gen, not just because of the amount of models on screen at once. Dynasty Warriors kind of did that, the difference is Dead Rising added an open world design to it. Those are some changes I've noticed, and that's not even going into the massive difference Live and PSN have had this generation.

There's the argument to be made that the gameplay of games on modern hardware is largely unchanged while the experience is what's benefitted from the new hardware. A lot of modern games could have been done gameplay-wise on older systems but there would have been a lot of experience-shattering handoffs made for it to work. Shadow of the Collossus is a prime example to get across what I mean: texture pop-in, bad framerate and whatnot on the PS2 is all resolved on the PS3. It's still the same gameplay but the experience is better because those aesthetic things are now no longer there to distract you from the game.

Opty on February 2012

0·

AtomikaJoin me on Destiny!All I do is suck and die.Registered Userregular

There's the argument to be made that the gameplay of games on modern hardware is largely unchanged while the experience is what's benefitted from the new hardware. A lot of modern games could have been done gameplay-wise on older systems but there would have been a lot of experience-shattering handoffs made for it to work. Shadow of the Collossus is a prime example to get across what I mean: texture pop-in, bad framerate and whatnot on the PS2 is all resolved on the PS3. It's still the same gameplay but the experience is better because those aesthetic things are now no longer there to distract you from the game.

As someone already mentioned, pleasing aesthetics are key to immersion. You know how when you watch a movie with really shitty and inconsistent special effects and you're all, "Man, this is just terribad?"

Same thing. Also the same reason millions of people think Avatar ISN'T a humongous pile of ape shit, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Prototype and Infamous arms the player with a massive amount of gameplay options, which was nowhere near possible on the last gen, not to mention the absurd amount of on screen action that can take place.

Onscreen action I'll grant you as a distinct possibility, but gameplay options? How were they not possible in the last generation?

There's the argument to be made that the gameplay of games on modern hardware is largely unchanged while the experience is what's benefitted from the new hardware. A lot of modern games could have been done gameplay-wise on older systems but there would have been a lot of experience-shattering handoffs made for it to work. Shadow of the Collossus is a prime example to get across what I mean: texture pop-in, bad framerate and whatnot on the PS2 is all resolved on the PS3. It's still the same gameplay but the experience is better because those aesthetic things are now no longer there to distract you from the game.

As someone already mentioned, pleasing aesthetics are key to immersion. You know how when you watch a movie with really shitty and inconsistent special effects and you're all, "Man, this is just terribad?"

Same thing. Also the same reason millions of people think Avatar ISN'T a humongous pile of ape shit, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Even if improving graphics didn't matter, without advances in hardware graphics would need to continually degrade in order to allow other aspects of a game's design to improve.

And honestly, the Zelda demo looks a LOT better than anything capable on the Wii:

You see that? It's a tech demo. Sure, it looks peachy, but you know what it ain't? It ain't a game. Every tech demo I've ever seen has been a divine sex dessert, but it hasn't meant dick to truth when it comes to what to expect from the average game. I mean hell. Shouldn't a tech demo be the most basic, lowball example of a system? Years before developers have learned how to truly finesse the optimal magic out of the architecture? And yet we get these pristine specimens that are rarely equaled by an actual game throughout the system's life. Tech demos are the campaign promises of the gaming world, although it's more than fair to mention that the developers are as equally guilty of the crime as the console companies can be.

You could have Dynasty Warrior games with tons of characters on screen on the PS2 but Dead Rising Wii shit the bed when it came to having multiple characters on screen to the point it made the system look weaker than a PS2. Where Nintendo went wrong was overestimating third party companies willingness to work with them/on their underpowered system. The first thing a third party company sees when they look at upgraded hardware isn't what they'll be able to do, it's what they'll be able to stop doing. They go "now I won't have to pack textures in some stupid way" or "now I don't have to optimize my code/mesh so tightly" or other similar reliefs. Only after that do they bother trying to learn the ins and outs of the new system and trying to eke new power from it.

The Wii didn't offer that, which is mainly what turned them away. Companies were stuck having to do extra coding to do things that just "worked" on the new consoles. If the system had the power of the competitors then third parties would have more actively engaged with trying to figure out new ways to use the remote than "replace button with shake." As it was though, they just threw their intern teams on a PS2->Wii port while their big boys were busy on the newer systems.

But if the Wii was as powerful as the competitors, then would it have been as cheap? Would the Wii have been a runaway success without being over $100 cheaper than the next console? I doubt it. That presents an awful rock and a hard place situation for Nintendo. If they had a powerful enough system and a comparable online infrastructure that was good enough entice third parties to actually make games on their system, then they wouldn't have had a hugeass audience and would have taken a financial bath and probably still end up in third place due to third parties' documented anti-Nintendo bias. On the other hand, by releasing an underpowered cheap console they expanded their gaming audience, achieved record sales and are now sitting on a huge warchest, but in the process they ended up pushing third parties away to the point that without massive money hats there's no way they'll develop for the WiiU and they'll all jump ship the second a MS/Sony next gen console comes out.

They're pretty screwed at this point and this next generation is not going to be kind for them in the least and I have no idea what they could do to make things better. They've already shot themselves in the foot by announcing the WiiU way too early, not only killing off Wii sales but underwhelming the industry. This E3 is make or break for them and I'm predicting break to be honest.

Or they continue to sell a shit ton of the Wii-U at a profit, and get good return on their 1st party games, and then why the fuck do they care what 3rd parties think. The Wii proves you don't need 3rd parties to be successful. Even if people only buy it to play Zelda + Mario, what the fuck does Nintendo care. They've already made bank right there.

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

0·

AtomikaJoin me on Destiny!All I do is suck and die.Registered Userregular

Prototype and Infamous arms the player with a massive amount of gameplay options, which was nowhere near possible on the last gen, not to mention the absurd amount of on screen action that can take place.

Onscreen action I'll grant you as a distinct possibility, but gameplay options? How were they not possible in the last generation?

The only example from the last gen I can think of that comes close to something like Prototype is Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, coincidentally also made by Radical Entertainment, who made Prototype. And by gameplay options, I mean an open world design that features a variety of ways to move around the environment (on foot, through the air and a simplistic parkour) and a variety of combat styles such as hand to hand, weapons based, range based, throwing objects from the environment or using the environment itself all taking place in the above mentioned ways (on foot, air and even vertically on buildings). Aside from Hulk, nothing even comes close.

Rei on February 2012

0·

AtomikaJoin me on Destiny!All I do is suck and die.Registered Userregular

Yeah, they are certainly saying they want those cross-platform titles badly.

And their consumer tracking data might be telling them something that I don't see, but I still think the Venn diagram of "people who want to play AAA 3rd-party titles" and "people who want a new HD console" barely overlaps.

Someone who is bitching about the limitations of the Wii in regards to traditional gaming probably already has a 360 or PS3. If you've already got a machine that will play Arkham City/Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty/Mass Effect, why buy another?

You could have Dynasty Warrior games with tons of characters on screen on the PS2 but Dead Rising Wii shit the bed when it came to having multiple characters on screen to the point it made the system look weaker than a PS2. Where Nintendo went wrong was overestimating third party companies willingness to work with them/on their underpowered system. The first thing a third party company sees when they look at upgraded hardware isn't what they'll be able to do, it's what they'll be able to stop doing. They go "now I won't have to pack textures in some stupid way" or "now I don't have to optimize my code/mesh so tightly" or other similar reliefs. Only after that do they bother trying to learn the ins and outs of the new system and trying to eke new power from it.

The Wii didn't offer that, which is mainly what turned them away. Companies were stuck having to do extra coding to do things that just "worked" on the new consoles. If the system had the power of the competitors then third parties would have more actively engaged with trying to figure out new ways to use the remote than "replace button with shake." As it was though, they just threw their intern teams on a PS2->Wii port while their big boys were busy on the newer systems.

But if the Wii was as powerful as the competitors, then would it have been as cheap? Would the Wii have been a runaway success without being over $100 cheaper than the next console? I doubt it. That presents an awful rock and a hard place situation for Nintendo. If they had a powerful enough system and a comparable online infrastructure that was good enough entice third parties to actually make games on their system, then they wouldn't have had a hugeass audience and would have taken a financial bath and probably still end up in third place due to third parties' documented anti-Nintendo bias. On the other hand, by releasing an underpowered cheap console they expanded their gaming audience, achieved record sales and are now sitting on a huge warchest, but in the process they ended up pushing third parties away to the point that without massive money hats there's no way they'll develop for the WiiU and they'll all jump ship the second a MS/Sony next gen console comes out.

They're pretty screwed at this point and this next generation is not going to be kind for them in the least and I have no idea what they could do to make things better. They've already shot themselves in the foot by announcing the WiiU way too early, not only killing off Wii sales but underwhelming the industry. This E3 is make or break for them and I'm predicting break to be honest.

Or they continue to sell a shit ton of the Wii-U at a profit, and get good return on their 1st party games, and then why the fuck do they care what 3rd parties think. The Wii proves you don't need 3rd parties to be successful. Even if people only buy it to play Zelda + Mario, what the fuck does Nintendo care. They've already made bank right there.

Yeah, they are certainly saying they want those cross-platform titles badly.

And their consumer tracking data might be telling them something that I don't see, but I still think the Venn diagram of "people who want to play AAA 3rd-party titles" and "people who want a new HD console" barely overlaps.

Someone who is bitching about the limitations of the Wii in regards to traditional gaming probably already has a 360 or PS3. If you've already got a machine that will play Arkham City/Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty/Mass Effect, why buy another

Some aren't that invested in their current platform, and would consider offloading their Xbox or 360 in favor of a new console with similar horsepower that also offers something different and interesting.

Though those people probably already bought a Kinect. And are either satisfied with it (and thus unlikely to jump) or underwhelmed (and thus unlikely to be swayed by another gimmick).

I think the Wii-U is a natural progression for Nintendo to make at this point. The Wii has proven to be massively successful by being different enough to garner a whole new market of casual players. A big reason for this was Wii Sports of course, but also the low price made it attractive to purchase more easily than compared to the 360 and massively overpriced PS3 at the time. Of course the downside of this was the low horsepower which hampered third party sales, which in turn led to less third party support and so on. Now with the Wii-U they will probably try to strike a balance of additional power to get those third parties to port their big games back over, while keeping the price acceptable ($300 range? sounds like a sweet spot) and also hope the tablet catches on with the aforementioned casuals who have let their Wiis collect dust. Will they pull it off? Who knows, that sounds like a tough balance. But I think we'd all agree that Nintendo needs to get those cross platform games to come back to them.

Someone who is bitching about the limitations of the Wii in regards to traditional gaming probably already has a 360 or PS3. If you've already got a machine that will play Arkham City/Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty/Mass Effect, why buy another?

I don't think its so much as swaying people back to the Wii (although there certainly are a few of us here, myself included who have given up on the Wii and stuck with the PS360) as it is simply getting those games to come out and having the Nintendo base buy them as well as their first party games. It couldn't hurt for either Nintendo or the third parties to port over a PS360 game and get a couple more sales there. That is if the market responds and buys the games.

Yeah, they are certainly saying they want those cross-platform titles badly.

And their consumer tracking data might be telling them something that I don't see, but I still think the Venn diagram of "people who want to play AAA 3rd-party titles" and "people who want a new HD console" barely overlaps.

Someone who is bitching about the limitations of the Wii in regards to traditional gaming probably already has a 360 or PS3. If you've already got a machine that will play Arkham City/Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty/Mass Effect, why buy another

Some aren't that invested in their current platform, and would consider offloading their Xbox or 360 in favor of a new console with similar horsepower that also offers something different and interesting.

Though those people probably already bought a Kinect. And are either satisfied with it (and thus unlikely to jump) or underwhelmed (and thus unlikely to be swayed by another gimmick).

It's possible, though.

I'm pretty sure the WiiU is more powerful.

The traditional gamer is well aware of what a console generation is and will see WiiU as the start of the next one.

I can't see many people abandoning their current HD consoles for the WiiU unless it clearly offers a solid mix of the games those systems are getting plus unique stuff that really demonstrates how much better it actually is.

I'm reminded a bit of the Dreamcast, which had tons of quality up-ports from the PSX/N64 as well as the cool stuff that came out just for it. While the Dreamcast is probably in my top three favorite consoles (the quality-to-crap ratio of games on that system is seriously amazing), we know how it ended up.

Luckily Nintendo is not as poorly managed as Sega was, isn't struggling to maintain its existence, and may have a better idea of how to combat piracy. Unfortunately, if there really is some latent, massive lack of goodwill (and not just an outspoken few) then they could also be sunk in the PR game like Sega was back then.

E3 can't come soon enough so we can get a better idea what we're looking at here.

Hardware limitations are becoming a big issue on the 360 and PS3 already. The most glaring one is battlefield 3, you've only got 24 players and much smaller maps on consoles, while on the PC the maps are far bigger and you get up to 64 players. There's not even a token Wii port because it would be a joke. If the Wii U doesn't shit on the 360 and PS3 performance wise it's going to have a massive problem because the consoles ports are falling behind what's being done on the PC extremely quickly. If the Wii U is released with games like battlefield 3 being up to scratch with the PC version (which is way more fun than the console version) then it has a shot. I can't see it happening though. In fact EA has already stated that there won't be a Wii U port of Battlefield 3.

This still doesn't leave the Wii U only open to a complete failure, it could still sell very well to the casual market (probably not as well as the Wii though). I just don't see it being as financially successful as the Wii unless it is a true gen ahead of the 360/PS3.

One thing I hope to see in all next-gen consoles is a rock solid 60 FPS. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to pull off a console, it's not like you have to guess for different configurations.

Also, with 8 GBs of RAM going for like 30-50 bucks nowadays, there is no excuse for the next gen to not have a good amount.

Yeah, they are certainly saying they want those cross-platform titles badly.

And their consumer tracking data might be telling them something that I don't see, but I still think the Venn diagram of "people who want to play AAA 3rd-party titles" and "people who want a new HD console" barely overlaps.

Someone who is bitching about the limitations of the Wii in regards to traditional gaming probably already has a 360 or PS3. If you've already got a machine that will play Arkham City/Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty/Mass Effect, why buy another?

Keep in mind that, from generation to generation, consumers can migrate from console to console. As an example, remember that the GTAs always came on the PS2 first, and sold much, much more there than on the later oXbox ports. Because of that, a lot of people were predicting that the PS3 version would do much better, because it's a "Sony" franchise. As it turns out, the 360 version of GTA 4sold better by about 1.5:1, which was more or less the average selling rate for multiplatform games between the two at the time.

And hell, Nintendo themselves managed to completely reinvent themselves between the GameCube and the Wii. There's no ironclad rule that says they can't do it again. Of course, it's not guaranteed to do that, but there's always the potential. I like how @linespider put it about the traditional gamers often setting the pace first.

And, @linespider, granted, demos don't always represent what the average game will look like. But even if the average game doesn't wind up looking as good as the Zelda demo, it'll likely look vastly better than the Wii did.

There is one thing that will turn the tide in the Wii-U's favor, over the PS3 and 360, when it comes out.

It will be new.

Sure, you've got your console right now with all these games and trophies and achievement and shit in it. Downloadable content, save files, digital-only releases. You love your machine. You've done so much with your machine.

You've done so much with your machine.

And it ain't as new as it used to be.

Now, I know what you'll say, it's what's inside that counts, and you've had good times, and everything you want is at home. But when Nintendo brings its hot little number out, all sleek and pristine plastic, promo videos under those perfect lighting conditions, how faithful will you really be? Will you stick by your tried and true five or six year relationship, or will you give in to the hot new thing?

After all, this is about electronics. Dress it how you want it, but cutting edge (even if its only public perception wise) stuff is compelling, and we're practically trained to want something new over something we've worked over for over half a decade. Just how it is.

It will be very interesting to see what kind of marketing and developmental forces Sony and Microsoft conjure up to compete in advertising with a brand new Nintendo console.

Then again, maybe they'll just say they're not competing with Nintendo.

One thing I hope to see in all next-gen consoles is a rock solid 60 FPS. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to pull off a console, it's not like you have to guess for different configurations.

It's easy to get 60fps. You just use less detailed models, lower screen/texture resolution, smaller areas, less sophisticated logic and AI and so on than the people making the games you're competing with use, because they know that most consumers don't care about 60fps (as much as those other things).

One thing I hope to see in all next-gen consoles is a rock solid 60 FPS. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to pull off a console, it's not like you have to guess for different configurations.

Also, with 8 GBs of RAM going for like 30-50 bucks nowadays, there is no excuse for the next gen to not have a good amount.

The RAM you use in your desktop computer at home and the RAM used in consoles is completely different.

The only thing that interests me about the WiiU is the prospect of playing and advancing main console games on the tablet screen while the TV is in use for something else. I would use the shit out of that feature.

One thing I hope to see in all next-gen consoles is a rock solid 60 FPS. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to pull off a console, it's not like you have to guess for different configurations.

Also, with 8 GBs of RAM going for like 30-50 bucks nowadays, there is no excuse for the next gen to not have a good amount.

The RAM you use in your desktop computer at home and the RAM used in consoles is completely different.

That's true... not only is it a lot faster, it's a lot more expensive. That's why the PS3 and 360 have surprisingly little RAM if you compare them to computers of the time.

Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.

But...the PS2 was the console that forced the DC out of the market?

I know, the DC is a weird case of not clearly fitting in one console generation or another. I'd argue it probably had the power to hang with the PS2 (not the Xbox or GC, though) but it having lots of PSX ports may put it more in line with that generation.

Like I said, I think one important part of how the WiiU does will not only be whether it gets third party support, but whether it gets appreciable third party support above and beyond what they're already doing on other available consoles. It's fine to have a few up-ports, but if this Christmas the WiiU just has a few Nintendo exclusives plus games that are available on the 360/PS3, it may cement in many people's minds that it really doesn't belong with other upcoming consoles (especially if MS and Sony play the same game as the PS2 v DC and hype up a marginal difference as being exponential).

Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.

But...the PS2 was the console that forced the DC out of the market?

I know, the DC is a weird case of not clearly fitting in one console generation or another. I'd argue it probably had the power to hang with the PS2 (not the Xbox or GC, though) but it having lots of PSX ports may put it more in line with that generation.

Like I said, I think one important part of how the WiiU does will not only be whether it gets third party support, but whether it gets appreciable third party support above and beyond what they're already doing on other available consoles. It's fine to have a few up-ports, but if this Christmas the WiiU just has a few Nintendo exclusives plus games that are available on the 360/PS3, it may cement in many people's minds that it really doesn't belong with other upcoming consoles (especially if MS and Sony play the same game as the PS2 v DC and hype up a marginal difference as being exponential).

That's actually a good point. We (and by we, I mean, most people everywhere) tend to favor and assume narratives over things, and it may be a serious point for Nintendo if their system release seems to be out of step with the perceptions inherent in the industry's next generation of machines.

But Sega and Nintendo are painfully different companies in terms of how they handle their consoles. Nintendo knows how to keep the band together. Sega, on the other hand, was always doing stuff. Some of it was quite good. But it really would've helped Sega if they'd managed to maintain a steady stable of franchises in a 'pillars of the earth' kind of way for supporting the presence of their brand in the public consciousness.

Barring a massive office fire, I think Nintendo will be able to be in better shape than Sega when the new console comes out.

Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.

But...the PS2 was the console that forced the DC out of the market?

I know, the DC is a weird case of not clearly fitting in one console generation or another. I'd argue it probably had the power to hang with the PS2 (not the Xbox or GC, though) but it having lots of PSX ports may put it more in line with that generation.

Like I said, I think one important part of how the WiiU does will not only be whether it gets third party support, but whether it gets appreciable third party support above and beyond what they're already doing on other available consoles. It's fine to have a few up-ports, but if this Christmas the WiiU just has a few Nintendo exclusives plus games that are available on the 360/PS3, it may cement in many people's minds that it really doesn't belong with other upcoming consoles (especially if MS and Sony play the same game as the PS2 v DC and hype up a marginal difference as being exponential).

Yeah, I was thinking along these lines too. The WiiU need a strong, and more then likely first-party, line up to justify it's existence as more then just "Nintendo's version of the 360/PS3"

It needs it's own set of exclusive "next gen" games. Cause that's what people buy systems for.

Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.

But...the PS2 was the console that forced the DC out of the market?

I know, the DC is a weird case of not clearly fitting in one console generation or another. I'd argue it probably had the power to hang with the PS2 (not the Xbox or GC, though) but it having lots of PSX ports may put it more in line with that generation.

Like I said, I think one important part of how the WiiU does will not only be whether it gets third party support, but whether it gets appreciable third party support above and beyond what they're already doing on other available consoles. It's fine to have a few up-ports, but if this Christmas the WiiU just has a few Nintendo exclusives plus games that are available on the 360/PS3, it may cement in many people's minds that it really doesn't belong with other upcoming consoles (especially if MS and Sony play the same game as the PS2 v DC and hype up a marginal difference as being exponential).

That's actually a good point. We (and by we, I mean, most people everywhere) tend to favor and assume narratives over things, and it may be a serious point for Nintendo if their system release seems to be out of step with the perceptions inherent in the industry's next generation of machines.

But Sega and Nintendo are painfully different companies in terms of how they handle their consoles. Nintendo knows how to keep the band together. Sega, on the other hand, was always doing stuff. Some of it was quite good. But it really would've helped Sega if they'd managed to maintain a steady stable of franchises in a 'pillars of the earth' kind of way for supporting the presence of their brand in the public consciousness.

Barring a massive office fire, I think Nintendo will be able to be in better shape than Sega when the new console comes out.

Yeah, I was fudging things a little. Still, the PS2 coming out before the Cube and oXbox helped put it in a position that the other two could never catch up.

Not to mention that you could argue (and many people have) that the Wii itself was far out of step from its generation-mates, much more so than the Dreamcast... yet it worked much, much better than the Dreamcast ever did.

Though personally, I think the Dreamcast was pretty much doomed from the start due to 1) people still being annoyed over the Sega CD/32X/Saturn fiascoes, 2) everyone and their dog being extremely excited for and willing to wait for the PS2, and 3) Sega's crappy financials.

But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.

"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."

But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.

"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."

This is not a positive.

For you maybe.

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.

But...the PS2 was the console that forced the DC out of the market?

I know, the DC is a weird case of not clearly fitting in one console generation or another. I'd argue it probably had the power to hang with the PS2 (not the Xbox or GC, though) but it having lots of PSX ports may put it more in line with that generation.

Like I said, I think one important part of how the WiiU does will not only be whether it gets third party support, but whether it gets appreciable third party support above and beyond what they're already doing on other available consoles. It's fine to have a few up-ports, but if this Christmas the WiiU just has a few Nintendo exclusives plus games that are available on the 360/PS3, it may cement in many people's minds that it really doesn't belong with other upcoming consoles (especially if MS and Sony play the same game as the PS2 v DC and hype up a marginal difference as being exponential).

Yeah, I was thinking along these lines too. The WiiU need a strong, and more then likely first-party, line up to justify it's existence as more then just "Nintendo's version of the 360/PS3"

It needs it's own set of exclusive "next gen" games. Cause that's what people buy systems for.

Well, the 360 has a GPU similar to ATI's X1800/1850, and the Wii U (as far as anyone knows) is like the ATI Radeon HD 4800's. It's a custom chip but I'll go with the 4850 since that was rather common... which would mean:

(note: unless the hardware was significantly modified it lacks the tessellation features of current DX11 hardware)

The point here being that on the GPU alone even if the Wii U ends up underpowered compared to competing consoles coming out it will be significantly more powerful/flexible than the 360. So hopefully we'll see more parity between consoles/pc. I mostly game on PC mind you, but I'm tired of terrible textures and FOV settings carrying over from console ports. I bought this GTX 460 so I could use it damn it.

Of course all three of them had loads of other factors that affected their success/failure, but being first can be a factor.

But...the PS2 was the console that forced the DC out of the market?

I know, the DC is a weird case of not clearly fitting in one console generation or another. I'd argue it probably had the power to hang with the PS2 (not the Xbox or GC, though) but it having lots of PSX ports may put it more in line with that generation.

Like I said, I think one important part of how the WiiU does will not only be whether it gets third party support, but whether it gets appreciable third party support above and beyond what they're already doing on other available consoles. It's fine to have a few up-ports, but if this Christmas the WiiU just has a few Nintendo exclusives plus games that are available on the 360/PS3, it may cement in many people's minds that it really doesn't belong with other upcoming consoles (especially if MS and Sony play the same game as the PS2 v DC and hype up a marginal difference as being exponential).

Yeah, I was thinking along these lines too. The WiiU need a strong, and more then likely first-party, line up to justify it's existence as more then just "Nintendo's version of the 360/PS3"

It needs it's own set of exclusive "next gen" games. Cause that's what people buy systems for.

Well, the 360 has a GPU similar to ATI's X1800/1850, and the Wii U (as far as anyone knows) is like the ATI Radeon HD 4800's. It's a custom chip but I'll go with the 4850 since that was rather common... which would mean:

(note: unless the hardware was significantly modified it lacks the tessellation features of current DX11 hardware)

The point here being that on the GPU alone even if the Wii U ends up underpowered compared to competing consoles coming out it will be significantly more powerful/flexible than the 360. So hopefully we'll see more parity between consoles/pc. I mostly game on PC mind you, but I'm tired of terrible textures and FOV settings carrying over from console ports. I bought this GTX 460 so I could use it damn it.

Right but none of that matters if there's not games to support it.

Cause unless Nintendo does something about it, I'm betting the Wii will just get alot of 360/PS3 ports of games developers were making anyway.

But I'd argue that the games built around motion control DID bring something to the table for gaming in general -- they helped invent new game genres or make niche ones more viable. Wii Sports sparked multiple collections of simplified, quick to get into sports games.

"Motion controls sparked an explosion in shoddily-written cheap minigames fests, some of which were based on sports or claimed to be a workout routine."

This is not a positive.

For you maybe.

No, it's absolutely not a positive for anybody. When the defining achievement of your console is "a lot of people made inferior knock-offs of our pack-ins," that's fucking laughable.